+ 1 zillion

Really? This seems awfully shallow.

First, I hear Gaga is a decent pianist. Second, it's not your piano.

Actually, I've heard an old song from her which is quite beautiful and well composed. Later on I saw it written somewhere that, before becoming what she's now, she tried to be a tradicional/serious musician, but decided to go this way when money failed to come.

First:

Yes, I recognize full well the irnony of posting about someone when a chief complaint is that here name is everywhere, but ah well, I can't help it, I want to know why people find this...I must struggle now to keep from using ten-cent words- for really, she looks as if she's worth about ten cents, so extraordinarily cheap...WHY do people like this THING? She's not even attractive-; yes, beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that, but come on, between us- who REALLY finds this person the least bit appealing (or at least not repuslive...and so fake-looking, Michael Jackson after his 100 or so surgeries still looked more real and human...)



And yes, playing that piano DOES make me mad. A piano is a piano, and meant to be played.

But by that same token, I wouldn't give a hack writer Shakespeare's pen to write with, even though that IS an instrument to be used!

You just...don't...

That is JOHN LENNON'S PIANO. That thing and that man produced some of the most influential music in the last century...

And that person not only plays it, but sways around like she's drunk (could've been), can't hit a note, tortures the notes, and plays the song with just an utter lack of passion and really fails so utterly with the whole enterprise?

Again, that's the equivalent of giving someone Shakespeare's pen so that they can write a bad "Family Guy" script with it.

So someone tell me, PLEASE- WHY is this person to be called an artist? I don't call a person a hpilosopher just because they think or study about it and fling ideas out (applying this to me as well, I'm not a philosopher) and I don't call people artists because they throw a bucket of paint at a wall and call it art or because they "tried" to sing a song. Singing a song badly and writing half-assed music, or even the mere attempt- the attempt alone does not an artist make, it requires substance and real contribution, and that THING has not a single contribution to her credit and even less substance.

And she plays LENNON's piano.

People should play it, yes.

McCartney- go ahead.
A music student playing a Lennon song- be my guest.
Someone just learning to play music and so the sond sounds badly- fine.

But a no-talent doing so to garner attention and doing so by LEECHING (and this is what irks me most, that she is really doing this to grab attention and moeny and fame by leeching off of Lennon and that iconic song and piano, not just any piano and any song but his iconic piano and arguably his most iconic and important and influential song, and she LEECHES off of all that for a quick moment) as she does...

I simply cannot Let It Be.

(I don't care if that's Paul's had to end with one of their songs...) ;)

@stef

I've heard the same thing. In fact, her old boyfriend is suing her because he says it was he who turned her into this sensation.

I'm not sure why people are so hard on Gaga. She's a good musician, but the reality is that people will pay more for this kind of stuff (plus, it's more fun).

In fact, music fans should be happy that this wonderful instrument is being played by other musicians instead of just rotting in some millionaire's house.

@obiwan

wan) Thanks for posting small paragraphs : )

2) This "holier-than-thou" attitude is very unbecoming. The fact that you dislike her music doesn't make her a hack. In fact, I think a couple of her songs (Alejandro and Paparazzi) offer some nice social commentary. I'm a huge Beatles fan (they're easily my favorite artists, by leaps and bounds) but I see nothing wrong with this. In all honesty, the son is more to blame for letting anyone find out about this.

**tries and fails to pretend to care about Lady Gaga's exploits**

Yeah even though you said it I'm calling you out --

As the article said Sean Lennon said:

"There are enough problems in the world."

So yeah. She's a joke, but whatever. Let the masses have her.

@abgemacht:

Why be hard on her?

Firstly, if she dares take the title of "artist," then she SHOULD face harsh criticism, as all artists must. It is part of the deal. There were those who called Shakespeare garbage...Nietzsche had plenty of critics (including the illustrious and in-his-own-right-brilliant George Bernard Shaw, he wrote a whole play, "Man and Superman," spoofing and attacking Nietzsche's idea)...hell, there were even writers who said the Beatles "couldn't carry a tune" when they made their famous American debut.

So she must accept this if she is to take that title, as the heavyweight champion of the world must take the lumps and shots that come with that title, and a politician must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (and FOZ and MSNBC news coverage) if they want their titles.

Secondly, for THIS reason...

"She's a good musician, but the reality is that people will pay more for this kind of stuff (plus, it's more fun)."

It has been reported this person can really play the piano well, that she's amazingly good at classical piano. Fine. But what is she doing? To drop any pretense and express my full and unadulterated opinion (and be rawer and looser with my words than I normally am, so dire is my ire over this person and her actions) this person has taken a talent and thrown it away and, far worse, dared to call herself an artist by playing the role of a strumpet, a slut, and have her music reflect and convey such a theme.

I'm sure not all of her songs, or even most of them, have lyrics or the like that are suggestive, but the fact that she transmutes her IMAGE onto these songs, and that image is that of the Slut, the Whore, the glorification of the Brainless Blonde Bimbo (I AM NOT CALLING BLONDE PEOPLE DUMB HERE, I am referring to the Spears-esque "stars" that are roll-off-the-line sticks and have attitude problems and are as shallow and brainless as I have implied and, yes, many of them are blonde, either naturally or through dye to further hide themselves behind a mask) and so that is what her music is. The Artist and their Work DO, at a level, converge and trasmute meaning unto one another; we think of Shakespeare in relation to his works and vice versa, and we may now, more than ever, view Mel Gibson and his works to be violent and chauvenistic and racist following HIS latest scandal that's now destroyed him (and good riddance...)

I am not going to say that Beethoven is "better" than, say, Billy Joel or Elton John, to the extent that Joel and John should not be listened to and that we should all hail Beethoven. (Especially as I like Mozart better.) ;) By that same notion I will not say that we should all worship John Lennon and pray for Gaga to just die (as some rather disgraceful Beatles fans were doing on the chat section right below the post of that story.)

But I WILL say we cannot take art for art and simply say, "Well, it's all equal, EVERYONE is a special artist with something new."

I am not one to quote Disney, but I can think of no better quote than...

Mrs. Incredible: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: Which is another way of saying no one is...

Enough with the "everyone's own opinion" garbage.

She has a style.
That style appeals to some.
That does NOT stop it from being what it is, or what she is- garbage, and garbage that spurned a chance to be golden at that, she's not exposing herself and doing all this to get by, as, say, Fantine in Hugo's "Les Miserables," she's being a slut to be a slut.

And if you want to place an artistic value on being a slut, go right ahead.

But do NOT say that entitles her to call herself an artist and use Lennon's piano.

She does this for fun. There is no substance to her work, she is an utterly base whore with a talent for seeking and finding the camera. And yes, people buy this more now than Beethoven or Puccini or, soon, perhaps Lennon or Paul Robeson (to use another golden oldie...seriously, if you've never seen it, get thee to YouTube and watch him sing his iconic song, "Old Man River," even if you've heard it before, as much as "Imagine" is forever "John's song" this is Robeson's, and it's simply moving.)

But just because something sells, even in the art world, doesn't mean that's now the pre-eminent art form or the next great step for art.

So be a slut all you want, m'Lady- but stay off my news radar, and stay away from the instuments and talents of the real artists.

@obiwan

1) "So she must accept this if she is to take that title"

My statement was in regards to the critics, not to her. I see no evidence that she isn't "accepting" the criticism. I just feel like people (you included, sadly) should have better things to do.

2) "It has been reported this person can really play the piano well, that she's amazingly good at classical piano. Fine. But what is she doing?"

It is her decision alone what she does with her talents. Are you really suggesting that if I was an excellent basketball player, but chose to play for the Harlem globetrotters, you'd condemn me as a hack?

3) "dared to call herself an artist by playing the role of a strumpet, a slut, and have her music reflect and convey such a theme."

I looked up the definition of artist (in a real, live dictionary): "2. A person proficient in a performing art, as an actor or musician." I'm pretty sure Gaga fits that definition. Now, I'm sorry if she doesn't fit the qualities of your ueberartist, but, quite frankly, you don't determine who is and isn't an artist.

4) Everyone is not special. In fact, most people are, by definition, normal. I'll freely admit that Gaga is nowhere near as good as the Beatles (even if she kept to her traditional style). But, that doesn't make her a slut and her work garbage.

5) Based on your adamant claims of trying to see both sides of the issue in philosophical debates, I'm disappointed (although not surprised based on your music thread) on your inability to see the worth of her unique style.

Okay, I think that the OP's mother did not hug him as a child =D

You should really learn to appreciate talent of all types. You can not care for her music, that's fine. But to deny that Lady GaGa is talented is ridiculous. (I haven't read this thread, so I don't know if you are.)

@rlumley

Haha. Thank you for adding a lighter note to the conversation.

But seriously, obiwan, you shouldn't get worked up over such insignificant things.

To restate my position:

-I can see and will freely admit that the Lady Gaga is classically trained in piano and capable to that effect
-I am of the opinion that her voice is one of the worst I have ever heard from an alleged professional bar none
-She is a slut and not only covents but conveys that message, and for no greater motivation than the base pleasures of fame and money
-She has eschewed her one enumerated talent, that classical piano playing, for this paltry and altogether hollow form she has now taken, and calls it "art," which carries a higehr meaning and purpose, that being the conveying of some sort of expression and to create and impress new ideas; if what she conveys is this image of the glorified slut...
-As such, since I see her mostly talentless, of poor artistic merit in her artistic choices, non proficient in part of her alleged field at all (if she is to be called a singer, I should expect her voice to have a quality slightly better than that a wounded lion) and she has chosen to ignore and not utilize the talent she has, her classical playing, then I must consider her a failure in her field for her lack of proficiency (the singing), the emptiness and immaturity of her compositions and numbers, her conveyed message being one of no substance or positive influence, and for her not utilizing the talent she had, the classical piano playing.

Am I aying all great music must be that of the piano, and only that?

Absolutely not.

But if all you can do is piano, I'd better not see you playing the saxaphone, so to speak...

I think Americans pretend to despise a lot of their pop culture because of a fear that they are culturally lacking or whatever. This is not true. I am a few weeks into my first summer here and I can tell you that it has been nothing but cultural immersion. Obiwan, Lady Gaga is representative of those she was influenced by - the LGBT community and the New York City artistic community. I've seen both and they're fascinating, to say the least.

^
Better to do that which you can actually do to a great degree to a great degree than to fail utterly in a wider field.

And, correspondingly, better to not produce art than to produce bad art.

(And by my given definition, her music DOES follow as being "bad," so do not, please, attempt to tell me it iss a matter of opinion, as that is here irrelevant, I am evaluating her strictly on these grounds which are logical devices I have constructed and utilized as my own system of evaluation; if you chose to question my ideas, then, please question my theory and not the individual case, as within my theory of art and my ideas my argument holds, so if I AM wrong, and perhaps I am, who knows, that wrong would be with the system and not with the individual case.)

"one of the worst I have ever heard from an alleged professional bar none" I'd first like to point out that this sentence makes no sense at all. Furthermore, I think her voice is fine, so one of us has a serious hearing disorder.

I'm really not even sure where you get this idea of a slut from. Her songs aren't noticeably sluttier than other pop music and her music videos,imho, are more scary than slutty.

To restate my position:

I'm glad you aren't head of the Artist Gestapo; I feel like many of us would have something to worry about.

Where is your theory stated?

Obiwan.

"I am of the opinion that her voice is one of the worst I have ever heard from an alleged professional bar none."

An argument in its most basic form must consist of a Claim, supported by Grounds, and a Warrant authorizing movement from Grounds to the Claim (Toulmin, "The Uses of Argument", 1958). I see that statement having the first, but lacking the latter two. Backing, Rebuttal and Qualifiers might help, too.

Actually, all of your statements in the bulleted list lack grounds. Examples, to be simple, but really a critical appraisal of even one example would convince me that you are familiar with the concept of argument.

Perhaps she's more of a performance artist than a musical one. I fail to see how she's any one else in the last 10 years of pop music. Also, since when have we asked our pop stars to take the moral high ground? If Lady Gaga enjoys sex, more power to her. You'd have a hard time convincing me that her sales are more down to her willingness to titillate than her ability to entertain.

I think it might be past bedtime for obiwan. I'd check this thread from work tomorrow if I were the rest of you :P

Oh obiwan, your pain is clear.

Frankly, I don't give a shit abuot any of the flim-flam surrounding Gaga. What i think is that she is a) capable of writing some fantastic 'pop' music (Poker Face, Bad Romance, Telephone...) and b) brought some performance back into the genre - something sadly lacking since, well, Jackson at his peak (Thriller).

And frankly, I'd rather listen to her stuff, than any of trite schoolboy lyrics of Lennon's solo career.

Save your ire for the processed boy/girl bands, the unoriginal rappers, 'R&B' singers, and cover version artists. Take to task the spawn of Cowell and other svengalis. Berate the bandwagon jumpers and those that offer nothing remotely original. And attack the snobs who believe that there is 'better' and 'worse' music (or any form of art). There is not. there is what you like. Justify it how you want, but you think it's better because you like it, not because of any intrinsic value. Appreciate the skill, even if you don't like the end results.

It's just pop music. If you enjoy you listen to it, if not listen to something else.

What the market wants, the market gets (corporations/government force it down people's throats, but that's a different story). I also hate her music, but I'm willing to let it live (that doesn't mean I don't criticise her).
But I oppose the 'slut' title. A guy fucks 5 women in a night, he is complimented and praised, by both sexes (generally, many men and women will be put off). If a girl does the same, she is vilified and insulted (by other women), and also treated easy, in addition to the above, (mainly by men).

@obiwan

"I am evaluating her strictly on these grounds which are logical devices I have constructed and utilized as my own system of evaluation"

That´s also called masturbation...keep talking to yourself if you are not interrested in a "real" conversation :-)

"She's not even attractive-; yes, beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that, but come on, between us- who REALLY finds this person the least bit appealing"

Why does that matter to you? Why do all woman have to look the way you like it, to earn respect? You should think about that one...everytime when a woman is polarising the crritics aim at here "beauty". It seems they are afraid of women who don´t fit their predjudices.